Camille Olson Quoted in SHRM Online
"Debate Resumes on Employment Non-Discrimination Act"

Camille Olson was quoted in the September 25, 2009 SHRM Online article, "Debate Resumes on Employment Non-Discrimination Act." The article discussed the current debate on Capitol Hill over controversial legislation that would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, focusing on whether the measure would generate a rash of lawsuits and create confusion and undue hardships for employers. According to the article, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (ENDA) on September 24, 2009. Camille served as a committee witness at the hearing where she testified about certain practical uncertainties that employers are likely to face when attempting to comply with ENDA’s provisions and sections of the legislation that may cause confusion for employees attempting to understand their rights and obligations under ENDA.

The article noted that Camille testified that several provisions of the law need clarification. Camille commented, “My purpose in providing this testimony is not to comment positively or negatively on whether Congress should enact H.R. 3017 into law as sound public policy. Instead, my testimony is provided as a summary distillation of my legal analysis of certain provisions of H.R. 3017, especially in the context of other federal nondiscrimination in employment legislation." Camille said that although the ENDA draft prohibits plaintiffs from filing disparate impact claims, the legislation allows “disparate treatment claims.” She also noted that the bill’s impact could be a matter of interpretation and court rulings could change the original intent of its authors.

The article also discussed the clarification on disparate impact. Camille noted, “This committee should consider adding a provision that explicitly excludes disparate impact claims for sexual orientation and gender identity to ensure that congressional intent is clarified.” Camille addressed other issues in her testimony, such as an overlap of Title VII and ENDA that could provide plaintiffs with duplicate awards in cases of discrimination. Another issue might involve determining whether ENDA or Title VII would apply when determining how to award attorney fees. The article noted that Rep. George Miller, D-California, chair of the Education and Labor Committee, asked Camille what the language should look like to clarify the problems she outlined and requested that she submit her suggested changes in writing to the committee.